Monday, September 18, 2006

constitution monday

the declaration of independence

the constitution

the bill of rights

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

nope- couldn't find it anywhere. nowhere in the constitution does it give us the right to spy on each other or torture other human beings. know why? because we are americans.


FreeCyprus said...

You said on my blog: "whether or not you believe that the government caused 9/11- they certainly have capitalized on it. both scenarios are reprehensible."

My reply to you: You're right.

The three documents you have on this latest post are three of the most beautiful documents I have ever read...

pissed off patricia said...

The fellows who wrote these pieces of history assumed that we would always be humane people. Most of us are, but the ones who aren't are running and ruining our country.

Peacechick Mary said...

Not only that, but if either Bush's bill or McCain's bill go into effect, we can say bye-bye to habeus corpus. That way if someone is picked up as a threat, they don't have to show why they think you're a threat. That is a radical change - a damn serious threat.

charlie said...

Perhaps W has an unabridged version of the Constitution that permits such things?

enigma4ever said...

Here Here.

thepoetryman said...

Know why we're Americans, speaking for myself and betmo and anyone else not from a foreign land reading this? Because we were born here.

Sorry. That is the only patriotic fervor I can ever muster. I know, I know... For shame. For shame.

Our constitution and founding father's I am sure felt the same to a certain extent if not a great many times. They understood that patriotism was mere puff-uppery and they knew that "mere" patriotism is not what America should be. Nationalism represents the problems we are facing today. Blind allegiance, nuke `em, terrorism r them not "we", "we" would never do such things, "we" are civilized compared to them, "we", "we", "we" all the way home...

Sorry about that... It just came out. :>/

thepoetryman said...

I will comment on the 9/11 factor; reprehensible indeed!

It's all disproportionate and we too bear the responsiblity for our fellow "in"humane brethren and foreign policy and humanity in general. I hope that our deeds (blogs) make the world shift at least as much as a feather in the wind for that reaction might very well be the catalyst for change.

Habeus corpus says goodbye and America will make a thud as it hits the canvas.

Yes. It's The Unabridged Bushism Constitution and the only one that can interpret it is a dictator-apprentice.

There. You missed a spot.

Publius said...

While you were going through the Constitution, did you see the words “Right to Privacy” or “Separation of Church and State?”
I know it is a bit off topic, but if we are going to go line by line and word by word though the Constitution, let’s make sure there aren’t any other laws that reference parts of the Constitution that don’t exist.

Sarah said...

Sorry Publius, but these rights ARE in The Constitution:

Right to Privacy

Separation of church and state

Myth: The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.

Jefferson's Letter To The Danbury Baptists

Maybe it would be a good idea to do some research on the topic - especially if you have a history major. How can you not have any information on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which includes the famous "separation of church and state" line used to describe the Establishment Clause?

Is the First Amendment NOT plain enough for you to read?

Sarah said...

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Is that NOT clear enough for you Publius?

Publius said...

Sarah, I clicked on your link. And as I said, “Separation of Church and State,” does not exist in the constitution. It says, “

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.”

And that was exactly my point. Religious beliefs are removed from government control and the government does not get involved in enforcing, mandating, or promoting a religion. However, it says nothing about not allowing individuals to express their religious views, or anything about preventing a teacher or politician from displaying the 10 Commandments. The idea of Separation of Church and state was an interpretation by Jefferson who was not even at writing of the Constitution, and his interpretation is now preventing people from using their first amendment right to express their religious views.

I was a history major, and I do know my history. Perhaps you should go back and read the information again yourself.